By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
428,853 Members | 2,246 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 428,853 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

vb.net data adapters - concurrency and insert comands

P: n/a
Hi All

I'm having problems getting my data adapter to throw a concurrency
exception with an INSERT command. I want to throw a concurrency
exception if an attempt is made to enter a row into tb_table when a
row with the same int_UID already exists in there.

Here is my stored procedure:

if not exists (select int_UID from tb_table where int_UID = @aint_UID)
begin
insert into tb_tables (int_UID, str_val1, str_val2)
values (@aint_UID, one, two)
end
else
begin
update xtb_SysConcurrency
set str_Update = 'No'
where int_Counter = -1
end

As you can see I'm trying to "force" 0 rows affected back to the data
adapter if the insert fails so that a concurrency exception is raised.
I thought that this was how it works .. 0 rows affected is interpreted
as a concurrency violation?

The problem is that although the second time the stored procedure is
run for the same UID, it (correctly) never does insert a row into the
table, however neither does it raise a concurrency violation.

I have tested my stored procedure in query analyser and can confirm
the second time it runs for the same UID it does come back with the
message 0 rows affected. Also I'm sure I have configured my data
adapter correctly as everything works just fine with update commands.
So what's going on? Does the INSERT command of the data Adapter not
respond to 0 rows affected?

Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

Thank you
Suzanne
Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
Hi Suzanne,

This is not a cuncurrency issue at all. Concurrency means that a user has
edited a record and saved it (or deleted) while you were editing the same
record.
Insert command can never produce a concurrency violation - that's why it is
never checked.
You shuld rather put a unique constraint on the column(s) and let database
throw you an unique constraint violation without any special code.

--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com
www.rthand.com

"Suzanne" <sj***********@mhapensions.com> wrote in message
news:3c**************************@posting.google.c om...
Hi All

I'm having problems getting my data adapter to throw a concurrency
exception with an INSERT command. I want to throw a concurrency
exception if an attempt is made to enter a row into tb_table when a
row with the same int_UID already exists in there.

Here is my stored procedure:

if not exists (select int_UID from tb_table where int_UID = @aint_UID)
begin
insert into tb_tables (int_UID, str_val1, str_val2)
values (@aint_UID, one, two)
end
else
begin
update xtb_SysConcurrency
set str_Update = 'No'
where int_Counter = -1
end

As you can see I'm trying to "force" 0 rows affected back to the data
adapter if the insert fails so that a concurrency exception is raised.
I thought that this was how it works .. 0 rows affected is interpreted
as a concurrency violation?

The problem is that although the second time the stored procedure is
run for the same UID, it (correctly) never does insert a row into the
table, however neither does it raise a concurrency violation.

I have tested my stored procedure in query analyser and can confirm
the second time it runs for the same UID it does come back with the
message 0 rows affected. Also I'm sure I have configured my data
adapter correctly as everything works just fine with update commands.
So what's going on? Does the INSERT command of the data Adapter not
respond to 0 rows affected?

Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

Thank you
Suzanne

Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
Hi Miha,
thanks for responding... I see your point and I do understand the
reasons.
The thing was - in the table I was trying to update - the column of my
int_UID is not /can not be unique (i.e. it is not the ID column for
this table).

However in the situation when 2 users download the same info at the
same time from the db then attempt to insert at the same time, I
wanted the second user to update the table to know that a row had been
inserted since they downloaded the data... thus I was trying to force
0 rows affected back to try and fabricate a concurrency violation.

Thanks for confirming the behaviour that on a insert command the data
adapter will not respond to 0 rows affected by generating a
DBConcurrencyException. I can now tackle things in a different way.. I
think what I must do instead is to raise an error in sql then catch it
in .net

Again thanks for the help

Suzanne

"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message news:<#f**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
Hi Suzanne,

This is not a cuncurrency issue at all. Concurrency means that a user has
edited a record and saved it (or deleted) while you were editing the same
record.
Insert command can never produce a concurrency violation - that's why it is
never checked.
You shuld rather put a unique constraint on the column(s) and let database
throw you an unique constraint violation without any special code.

--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com
www.rthand.com

Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
Hi Suzanne,

....
Thanks for confirming the behaviour that on a insert command the data
adapter will not respond to 0 rows affected by generating a
DBConcurrencyException. I can now tackle things in a different way.. I
think what I must do instead is to raise an error in sql then catch it
in .net
That is certainly one way.
Again thanks for the help


You're welcome :)

--
Miha Markic [MVP C#] - RightHand .NET consulting & software development
miha at rthand com
www.rthand.com
Jul 21 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.